Rewards offered for evidence supporting creationist claims

EF C-14 is one type of radiometric dating that is generally useful back to somewhere between 30,000 and under certain conditions back to ~50,000 years ago. Other methods, K-Ar, U-Pb, Rb-Sr, Lu-Hf, Re-Os and variants of those methods can extend the dating utility back to billions of years.

 

I meant exist due to age over x amount of time.
Gina

 

EF: I answered that. Do you have evidence that trillions and trillions of decays indicate variability?

 

No...but...if trillions and trillions of decays exist and that proves age and the exact same things are billions of years old and stayed the same thing for billions of years wouldn't it kinda rule out evolution?
Ok, I don't know what I'm talking about really in ALL of this, I was just makin' a stab in the dark for fun cuz a thousand dollars would buy that new computer I want! LOL So I'm outta the conversation. Thanks for indulging me though!
Gina

 

Hi Gina! I thought I would take the time to explain the basic facts about radioactivity for you so you'll be up to speed on how it is used to date things.

All the atoms in the world are made up at their core out of protons and neutrons. The nucleous holds together due to the strong nuclear force which acts like a kind of glue. But only some combinations work. The combinations that don't work aren't around, of course.

Some combinations of protons and neutrons only work for a while and then spit out something - like an electron, or a whole alpha particle - so that they turn into something else.

By way of example, Carbon 14 has 6 protons and 8 neutrons in the nucleous. It also has 6 electrons orbiting the nucleous in a shell, but we can ignore them for this discussion.

Carbon 14 is a very rare, unstable kind of Carbon. Most carbon is carbon 13 or 12.

Every once in a while, a carbon 14 atom will spontaneously eject an electron and turn into element 5 (nitrogen) instead of being element 6 (carbon). This is radioactivity.

Any one carbon 14 atom, you never know when it will go off like that. Its a matter of chance. But you line up several million of them, and you can make a confident prediction. It will take 5,570 years for half of them to blow.

Nothing changes that rate of decay. Not heat, not cold, not magnetism, not the particular chemical reaction the carbon happens to be going through. Nor can you tell in advance which half is going to go. Each little atom goes in utter unpredictable fashion. The regularity we observe is all a matter of statics of large numbers. You really do know, if you have a million of them, that about half will be gone in 5,570 years. It works over and over.

Of course, when we say half will be gone in 5,570 years, it is possible to figure out how many will be gone in a single day. The formulas for figuring that out are well known and easy to use with any decent calculator or computer.

So IF we know how many carbon 14 atoms there were once in a sample, and IF we measure how many radioactive decay events are still happening every hour or day right now, we can calculate how old the sample was before they started to decay.

These days, they can even use a mass spectrometer and actually count, atom by atom, how many carbon 14 atoms are left in a little sample. This allows for those maximum age determinations back to as far as 50,000 years in some cases.

Other radioactive elements turn out to be useful for longer ages.

So far, that's pretty much unarguable. Those are the known facts.

What are the arguments used by creationists? About the only ploy they have for all the age determinations that all seem to agree is to say that sure, radioactivity is constant NOW, but maybe it worked faster in past ages. You'll see this referred to over and over again in these threads.


OK I'll stop here and ask - does that help? Do you have any questions?

 

Thanks! You guys and gals are great on here!
Yes, a question. Which radio dating method is proven to be most accurate? (despite what it's used to date)
I read on a site that c14 is increasing in our atmosphere, and since it's increasing that's supposed to prove a young earth. I think it said less than 30,000 yrs.. What's right or wrong about that?
Gina

 

Well, they all have a small percentage margin of error, of course, and I suppose that some samples would be more contaminated and less accurate than others, so it would depend on how good a sample you were able to get - I don't know enough myself to tell you which is MOST accurate. When you read the actual reports from the scientists, they'll usually say something about how accurate that particular measurement was somewhere in the report.

You can find some article somewhere that will say almost anything, so without knowing more about what you read, it's pretty hard to say what was right or wrong about it . . .

 

No. Do you have proof that near surface earth conditions have followed the uniformitarian model or even close to such a model for all of natural history? If not, you accept a dating method based on an assumption, not fact.

 

Actually, we can test that idea a number of ways. C14 can be calibrated by data from ancient lake varves. They form in couplets, on light, and one dark every year. So we know what they are.

Not long ago, the material that buried Pompeii two thousand years ago was analyzed by Argon-Argon methods. It was more accurate than expected.

These are not assumptions, they are evidence.

 

EF: Yes, we do have evidence (science is not about proof) in the rock record that indicates that near surface earth conditions have changed within a relatively narrow range w/respect to conditions necessary to affect decay rates. For example, the thermal budget in the Archean was slightly higher than it is today.

 

No. Do you have proof that near surface earth conditions have followed the uniformitarian model or even close to such a model for all of natural history? If not, you accept a dating method based on an assumption, not fact. </font>[/QUOTE]Scott, as mentioned before, radioactive decay rates do not change under any conditions we can simulate. So non uniform surface conditions on earth would not make any difference to age determinations based on radioactive decay rates.

What's more, we can observe radioactive decay taking place in the distant past. How? By using astronomical observations. Light reaching us from galaxies a billion light years away shows radioactive decay happening at the same rate it happens today. This is true in all directions.

So its not just an assumption. It has been checked.

 

Could you please clarify for me by what means we are able to determine the number of carbon 14 atoms that were once in a sample?

 

Please bear with me and allow me to request further clarification.

First, could you explain what affect the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has on the amount of C-14 found in a sample?

Second, are the other methods of radiometric dating dependent on similar assumptions?

Third, C-14 dating has been said to be somewhat accurate back to 50,000 years. What items of known age have been used to calibrate these measurements?

Fourth,

By what means can we determine how many grams of stable carbon were initially in the material tested? Can you clarify at what point of an items existence is the number of c-14 atoms it contains assumed to be about the same as that in modern materials? Do C-14 measurements or any other radiometric measurements take into consideration that most materials are composed from materials of varying ages?

Fifth, if C-14 dating leaves a ten year margin of error for an item less than 600 years old, how great is the margin of error for items which are attributed an age of 50,000 years?

And finally, if scientists cannot predict which C-14 atom will be the next to succumb to decay, is it reasonable to assume that the C-14 contained within a small sample has steadily decayed at the given rate for thousands of years when that sample is actually only a very, very miniscule part of a vast system containing C-14 (Earth), which is itself only a very, very miniscule part of another vast system possibly containing C-14 (Milky Way Galaxy), which is also a very, very, very miniscule part of a vast system containing C-14 (The Universe)? In other words, it is one thing to say that the C-14 within a system decays at a certain rate, but it is quite another thing altogether to say that the C-14 within a geologic sample has steadily decayed at that same rate for 50,000 years. Can this be said conclusively of any geologic sample that you know of?

 

Plants function to acquire their carbon from the air by using the sun to break off the oxide part (therby making oxygen for you and me) and keeping the carbon. Thus the carbon in a plant reflects the carbon that was in the air during the lifetime of the plant.

They are not. Typically, radioactive end products that are gases are measured in the solid rock. When a rock is molten, all the gases are able to bubble off. Then whatever gases form in the decay series from the trace amounts of radioactive material are in it begin to accumulate, unable to leave the rock from the spot where they form. The gases are measured in a lab, tells us how long ago the rock was last molten.

We have tree ring chronologies that go back about 10,000 years and lake varves - sediments in the bottom of lakes where we can tell the seasonal changes - with twigs and leaves and such for testing trapped therein - that go back for the rest of the years to calibrate the data.

It's always a ratio that is measured, how much regular carbon 12 vs carbon 14 is in the sample. Leather reflects the carbon in the plants the animal ate. Wood carbon is directly assimulated from the air. Usually a very small sample is tested, a splinter of the wood, a small corner clipped off a parchment, etc, multiple materials is not usually a problem.

A good guess would be 1 to 3 thousand years plus or minus, but usually the scientific report will mention the amount of uncertainty in the dating.

Astronomical observations looking backward in time observe radioactive decay taking place in the remnant of supernova. Not Carbon 14, but other, shorter lived elements. They are observed to decay at the same rates as the same elements decay today when produced in our atom smashers. These observations are typically from supernova observed in other galaxies both far and near, cosmically speaking. The Oklo Reactor is a naturally formed nuclear reactor that operated in the distant past. The scientists who evaluated the resulting abnormal traces tell us they vindicate the idea that radioactivity in general behaved then as it does now.

So these things have been checked. Thanks for the great questions!

 

Here's a link to an article about the Oklo reactor:

http://www.ans.org/pi/np/oklo/